Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative analysis of clinical trials and evidence-based treatment algorithm in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Open access
Galiè, Nazzareno, Seeger, Werner, Naeije, Robert, Simonneau, Gerald, Rubin, Lewis J.·2004·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

The numerous controlled clinical trials performed recently in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) can allow us to abandon a clinical-based treatment strategy and adopt an evidence-based therapy. Both uncontrolled and controlled clinical trials with different compounds and procedures are reviewed and compared in order to define the efficacy-to-side-effect ratio of each treatment. A grading system for the level of evidence of treatments based on the number of favorable controlled clinical trials performed with a given compound is adopted; a treatment algorithm based on the evidence derived by clinical trials is proposed. It includes drugs approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of patients with PAH and/or drugs available on the market for other indications. The algorithm is restricted to patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV because they represent the largest population included in controlled clinical trials. In addition, the different treatments have been evaluated mainly in sporadic, idiopathic PAH and in PAH associated with scleroderma or to anorexigen use. Extrapolation of these recommendations to the other PAH subgroups should be done with caution. Oral anticoagulation is proposed for all patients, whereas diuretic treatment and supplemental oxygen are indicated in cases of fluid retention and hypoxemia, respectively. High doses of calcium channel blockers are indicated only in the minority of patients who are responders to acute vasoreactivity testing. Nonresponders to acute vasoreactivity testing, or responders who remain in NYHA functional class III, should be considered candidates for treatment with either an endothelin receptor antagonist or a prostanoid. Continuous intravenous administration of epoprostenol is proposed as rescue treatment in NYHA functional class IV patients. Phosphodiesterase-V inhibitors should be considered in patients who have failed or are not candidates to other therapies. Combination therapy can be attempted in selected cases. Both balloon atrial septostomy and lung transplantation are indicated for refractory patients or where medical treatment is unavailable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.02.038

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Galiè, N., Seeger, W., Naeije, R., Simonneau, G., & Rubin, L. J.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
43
Issue
12
Pages
S81-S88
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970369512
Cited by
255
References
1
FWCI
32.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative analysis of clinical trials and evidence-based treatment algorithm in pulmonary arterial hypertension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.02.038
The paper
Galiè, N., Seeger, W., Naeije, R., Simonneau, G., & Rubin, L. J. (2004). Comparative analysis of clinical trials and evidence-based treatment algorithm in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.02.038

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.